Aggregate judicial sentencing patterns constitute policy even when individual sentences do not.

Evidence

Sentencing in criminal cases illustrates this sort of cumulative policymaking. Until the imposition of sentencing guidelines (see Chapter 6), criminal law in the United States tended to define the minimum and maximum penalties for various offenses—for example, 5 to 10 years for armed robbery—but allowed the judge considerable discretion in sentencing within those guidelines. Although the sentence meted out to an individual offender does not establish policy, the overall pattern of sentencing in criminal cases does constitute important policymaking, because it reveals how the society regards various crimes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1440

Categorization

• DEFINE: Illustrates the cumulative policymaking concept with the concrete sentencing example.
• XREF: connects to: Aggregate sentencing patterns constitute policy by revealing how a society regards various crimes — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2820; Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688; Judicial rulings can set legal obligations without settling disputed public policy — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 207

Broader Connections

• Aggregate sentencing patterns constitute policy by revealing how a society regards various crimes #corroborates (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2820
• Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views #complicates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688
• Judicial rulings can set legal obligations without settling disputed public policy #complicates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 207